Member Profile

Ummm....the SCOTUS just spanked the Obama administration for trying to interfere with the Lutheran church over their hiring/firing practices. Do you think this is less of an intrusion into church practices?? This is interference with church doctrine...sacred doctrine that has been handed down for nearly 2000 years, regardless of what some on the left say. If you think that the SCOTUS will not spank the Obama administration again for over reaching their authority, I believe you will be sadly mistaken.

And no...I don't want to make anyone do anything. I don't want to establish the Catholic Church as anything, or enforce its doctrine on anyone. That is a silly argument, and you really should know better. If Obama allowed for Catholic institutions to just have a different policy, one that didn't include contraceptives and abortifacients, then how would that enforce anything on anyone. The employees who wanted contraceptives could go with one of the other government plans, and the Catholic church would have to pay the $2000/year/employee fine (which would most likely be much less than actually paying for insurance for this person in the first place). Then, the non-Catholic employee could have contraceptives, the Catholic Church doesn't have to violate their conscience by paying for it, and the gov't gets an extra 2000 from the Catholic Church for sending their employee elsewhere for insurance.

Thatsubject has NEVER been swept under the rug since it became public. The priests involved were prosecuted, and many sent to jail. The Catholic Church has paid out huge sums of money to the victims, provided victim counseling for the victims and their families, and the Pope has issued an apology, and all rightly so. However, it is still not enough. There can never be enough money, counseling or apologies to make up for what was done to those children. We Catholics will never forget the shame these priests have brought our faith. They have forever tainted our religion. So no...it has not, nor will it ever be "swept under the rug" again. And thank God for that. Because we (Catholics) should never forget the pain these priests caused. Ever.

As for women in our clergy (as priests, deacons etc), it is a biblical derivation for the doctrine of having only men priests. Here is a good article that explains in much more detail. link to catholic.com

and I must say that just because the horrific sins of a few, the whole church should not be punished. And besides, the instances of sexual abuse of minors is more higher than that in the Catholic church. However, the cover up of the priest/pedophile scandal was indefensible. However, this issues isn't about the pedophile priest. It isn't about women being priests. It isn't even about women's healthcare. It is about the first amendment rights of the Catholic Church being thrown under the bus. And that is an outrage.

Anyhow, the teachings in the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium (and thus contained in the Sacred Magesterium as well)clearly state that human life is sacred from conception to natural birth. Therefore to somehow impede the implantation of a fertilized embryo, or to abort a baby would be considered a sin in the Catholic faith.

Therefore, since the teachings contained in the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium are considered to be infallible, the the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed, derived from an infallible doctrine. Just because no Pope has ever claimed infallible, does not mean that the teachings of the Magesterium can be ignored. As I mentioned previously, that is another way doctrine can become infallible, and since the protection of life from conception on is firmly in the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium,and therefore anything that would NOT protect life from conception on (say...contraceptives, abortifacients and abortion) would be considered a 'grave evil' by the Catholic church.

The belief that life begins at conception is largely due to the inability to determine at what point a human being acquires a soul. Since that cannot be scientifically determined, the best option is to err on the conservative side and go with life beginning at conception. That is why contraception, abortifacients and abortion is considered a "grave evil".

The teachings on contraception and abortion are found in the Ordinary Magesterium, and it is considered to be an infallible doctrine, due to it's constancy. Teachings found in the Ordinary Magesterium do not have to be proclaimed Ex Cathedra by the Pope in order to be considered infallible.

And I most certainly believe a celibate Pope can understand biology enough to make a statement on this issue, by the way.

Nothing has happened to Christianity. Catholicism is a religion, and the Protestant religion split off from the Catholic religion in the 16th century mostly due to the efforts of Martin Luther to reform the Catholic Church which had become rather corrupt in that day and age. This period in time is known as the Reformation. They are both Christian religions, and the Protestant faith has many different sects, such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Anglicans, Baptist, Calvinists, Evangelical Christians,etc.

There are many differences between the Catholic and Protestant faiths. However, some major differences between the Catholic Church and almost all of these other Protestant religions is that the Catholic faithful follow the directives of the Vatican (ie the Pope, aka the Holy See). Another major difference is that Catholics believe that the bread and wine offered up during the Catholic mass is changed, by the power of the Holy Spirit, into the body and blood of Christ. Another major difference is the veneration of Mary. Because she was Jesus' mother, said "yes" to God's will, and brought him into the world, Catholics believe that she is holy and worthy of adoration and veneration. Only the Episcopal/Anglican faith believe in the last two points, but they do not recognize the Pope as a spiritual leader of their church.

They all follow the teachings of Christ,and thus are Christian religions. They only differ in certain doctrinal areas....but never waiver from the Bible's teachings.

It's not a cost issue. The problem lies in the fact that the Catholic Church does not believe in contraception. They feel that being required to pay for an insurance plan that will offer contraceptives and abortifacients they would be complicit in what they believe to be a "grave evil", and that is unacceptable to them. They feel that the Obama administration is telling them to "stuff their religious beliefs", and this they will not do.

This is about the 1st Amendment being violated. The government is basically telling the Catholic Church that they have 1 year to figure out a way to violate their consciences. This is an unprecedented attack on religious freedom.

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, seen by most as a progressive, wrote on his blog January 20: “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. ...For me there is no other fundamental issue as important as this one as we enter into the presidential and congressional campaigns. Every candidate must be pressed to declare his/her position on all of the fundamental life issues, especially the role of government to determine what conscience decision must be followed: either the person’s own moral and conscience decision, or that dictated/enforced by the federal government.”

Well, as I said before, "judgement of conscience" covers this. Regardless of what any Pope says (and I mean no disrespect to any Pope), if Mr. Santorum believes that it was best for our country, then I suppose that is why he voted the way he did. Neither Pope is an American citizen, nor are they US Congressmen, privy to US intelligence on issues regarding the Middle East. Santorum has a duty to the American people to do what he feels is best for our country. I'm not defending his vote, I am only pointing out that his duty to his country might have trumped his personal religious beliefs. I would think you would like that he didn't allow his personal religious beliefs to dictate his political career. I guess I was wrong about that... I also suppose Mr. Santorum has probably read the USCCB's document entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship", which speaks directly to the issues that face every Catholic voter and public official. This document speaks to a lot of the issues you have cited, and might give insight into why he voted the he did, or feels the way he does on certain issues.

But this whole issue isn't really about any particular Catholic's lifestyle or choices. Regardless of your (and others)desire to make this issue all about Rick Santorum's faith and his record, it's NOT about that. It IS all about the Obama administration's disregard of the First Amendment, and the separation of church and state. I don't know why you can't see that. It is plain as day in the text of the 1st Amendment.

I am sure glad you have the voice of God guiding you. You must be a lucky person indeed. The fact remains that the government is interfering in the free practice of religion. It is against the First Amendment, and that is that. I predict that the SCOTUS (if it goes this far) will bitch slap the Obama administration once again for interfering in the free practice of religion.(reference the recent Lutheran Church clergy case that went before the SCOTUS).

And no one is telling YOU or anyone else how to live their lives. Funny how you could make this all about YOU. No one is trying to infringe upon your rights, yet you turn this all around as though it affects you in some way. As I said before, the Obama administration could have avoided this all together if they had just offered to exempt these institutions.

I respectfully disagree with you. The actual text of the First Amendment is very clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Establishment of religion is only part of the First Amendment. Congress cannot make any law that will prohibit the free exercise of religion. THAT is the part that Catholics and other religions who have similar beliefs as the Catholic Church are upset about.

As I said before...."the Separation of Church and State" swings both ways.

Because abortion affects all of society. All life is sacred...and for Catholics, and other who are Pro Life, this includes babies in their mother's wombs. Some people believe this strongly enough to vote their conscience on this matter.

And you are right. The Catholic Church is very much involved with human rights worldwide, providing not only billions of dollars in aid, but also encouraging the faithful to go out and help the poor and outcasts in this world. Among many, many other services, they have migrant worker outreach, immigrant outreach services, believe in a living wage and fair trade practices, and believe that healthcare should be universal. They only catch: they don't believe that contraception should be a mandated "preventative service" offered to their employees. I don't know why it would have been so hard to offer an alternative in the first place. Now Obama has kicked the proverbial hornet's nest. Oh well...

Teachings on abortion and contraception are contained in the Ordinary Magesterium of the Catholic Church. The contents of this document are considered infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church because of their constancy in the faith, regardless of whether they have been given Ex Cathedra.

And the Catholic insurance plans actually allow for this use of hormone therapy, as does the Catholic church. Provided the diagnosis confirms that this therapy is needed, the Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with it. All you need is for a doctor to document this condition, and Catholic insurance plans that cover prescriptions will cover the cost of these medications.

But Obamacare would not limit the Catholic insurers to this narrow usage. Therefore, they would be forced to "check their beliefs at the door" so to speak, and that goes against the First Amendment. The government is forcing a religious group to go against one of its most central teachings, that is considered infallible (reference: Ordinary Magesterium). This is blatantly unconstitutional.

According to the Catholic Church, abortion and contraception is considered to be evil, and a grave, sinful act against God. This has NEVER, EVER changed in the history of the church. The way it was dealt with as a matter of reconciliation and penance might have changed, but Church doctrine has not.

And I would advise you the next time you wish to write a on a Catholic and their personal relationship with God and their church, you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read the section dealing with "Judgement of Conscience". In that section, Catholics are encouraged to act according to their consciences, and if they so discern through prayerful, informed thought, they may disagree with the Church, in situations that do not constitute a "grave evil". In Chapter 1782 it states: "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." The only exceptions to this are in the case of matters that are delivered "Ex Cathedra", which are actually rather rare Papal edicts that cannot be ignored; or those teachings contained in what is termed the "Ordinary Magesterium", which are considered infallible teachings of the Church. Abortion and birth control are directives that have been given to Catholics via the Ordinary Magesterium.

So, you see, Santorum could very well have made a judgement of conscience on all those matters you listed, given that there are always many reasons why politicians feel the need to vote a certain way on different issues. And whether YOU believe the decisions he made in those instances were right, he might very well have felt he had the nation's best interests at heart. Since there is also a portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that deals with the case for the "Just War". I don't know Mr. Santorum's conscience or his heart, but if he felt the wars he voted for fell into this category and were justified, then he would not be going against the Catholic Church at all. You are confusing the opinions of church leaders with doctrine delivered Ex Cathedra.

You know...it seems to me that the central issue here is the Obama administration's disregard for the First Amendment. It would have quite simple for Mr. Obama to offer a way for Catholic institutions be faithful to their doctrine, however, he chose not to. Now, he looks as though he has absolutely no regard for the First Amendment and the separation of church and state that so many liberals like to point to, although,apparently only when it suits THEIR purposes.

Regardless of Mr. Santorum's record in public life or as a practicing Catholic, or any other Catholic's lifestyle, the central issue remains that the government is trying to force a religious institution to go against one of its most sacred doctrine: that all life is sacred, from conception to death. It matters not whether YOU, ME, or anybody else believes that. And this may come as a shock to you...but this is NOT about what you believe. It IS about what the Catholic Church teaches. And this administration's mandate on contraception IS in direct violation of the First Amendment, with regard to religious institutions this affects. Mr. Obama simply does not have the power to ignore the Constitution. He should know better. He did teach that course, didn't he?

Showing comments 14 - 1Page: 1

Donations

Thank you to all of my supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press! Checks to